RUTGERS LAW CAMDEN — VICE DEAN ADAM F. SCALES — EMAIL ON STUDENT EVALUATIONS
Throughout my academic career, I’ve displayed an array of sartorial
styles. For years, I veered sharply between “Impoverished Graduate
Student” and “British Diplomat.” One summer I taught exclusively in
khakis and t-shirts. Lately, it’s been a small rotating cast of Banana
Republic’s finest (that 40% off sale every weekend always pulls me in).
Of course, one would never know any of this by reading my student evaluations. That’s because I’m a man.
It has come to my attention that a student submitted an evaluation
that explored, in some detail, the fashion stylings of one of your
professors. It will surprise no one possessing the slightest
familiarity with student evaluations that this professor is a woman.
Women are frequently targets of evaluative commentary that, in addition
to being wildly inappropriate and adolescent, is almost never directed
at men. Believe me, I am about the last person on this faculty for whom
the “sexism” label falls readily to hand, but after a lifetime of
hearing these stories, I know it when I see it. Anyone who doubts this
would find it instructive to stop by and ask any one of our female
professors about this and similar dynamics.
Student evaluations are an important tool. They are also a public
one, and become part of the permanent record of every faculty member.
(Not the bit of fashion advice at issue here, which I struck from the
evaluation system in a nanosecond.) When you compose comments about
faculty – which can be as direct, negative, and harshly detailed as you
like – I want you to remember that you’re writing for the personnel
file, and for history. If you have any doubts that posterity will
somehow muddle through without the benefit of your fashion advice, allow
me to dispel them once and for all.
AFS
Adam F. Scales
Vice Dean and Professor of Law
Rutgers School of Law, Camden

Discrimination
and Disadvantage, a new blog that just launched. This new blog, which is coordinated by Thomas Nadelhoffer and Kevin
Timpe, aims to provide a venue for philosophical discussions of
discrimination and disadvantage, as well as for discussions of how these
phenomena operate in the profession of philosophy.

I
have recurrent thoughts about times when doctors felt adamant about the
benefit of interventions—putting babies to sleep on their front, for
example, or giving steroids to people with head injury, or
bloodletting—that turned out to be lethal.

Now we have
guidelines, hundreds of them. Good guidelines would distil evidence
cautiously, making clear what we know and where the gaps are. They would
say how many people would get what benefit from a treatment, while
identifying the cost in terms of harm. But guidelines are not always
applicable to our patients,1 and they are meant to guide practice; rarely should they dictate it.

The
medical director and the centre director for the Thames Valley area of
NHS England have recently written to GPs about the prophylactic use of
oseltamivir (Tamiflu) for flu in nursing homes. They wrote, “It is
concerning that doctors may be deterred from prescribing antivirals and
this could be putting lives at risk.”

They noted
“differing interpretations of the evidence base” but added that the
Medical Defence Union has identified an “expectation on the part of the
public and the legal profession that NICE [National Institute for Health
and Care Excellence] guidance and PHE [Public Health England] advice
would be followed.” They also said “it is expected” that GPs “would make
a decision to prescribe based on the needs of their patient and the
evidence of best practice and guidance from national bodies such as NICE
and PHE,” adding, “There is also an expectation defined in the GMC’s
[General Medical Council] Good Medical Practice that a doctor will respond to an organisation advising on public health.”

This
reads as a veiled threat: if GPs decide not to prescribe oseltamivir
for all patients in a nursing home, lawyers and the GMC could dust down
their robes and eviscerate the doctor for not following orders. In a no
blame, patient centred NHS, things might be different.

Why
might doctors hesitate with their prescription pads? It could be
because 33 people have to be treated prophylactically to prevent one
case of flu.2
One in 20 will vomit, and one in 100 will have neuropsychiatric side
effects. Or maybe it’s because NICE didn’t include a negative trial in
its calculations.3 And PHE cites serial relative risks, but it remains unclear whether the data apply to multimorbid people in nursing homes.4

All
of this leaves us with a drug of uncertain, probably marginal
benefit—and difficult choices. The architects of mass public health
interventions still don’t grasp that populations are made up of
individual patients. Each person offered antivirals needs not just an
assessment of dose but also a discussion of risk and harm. Without extra
resources what work would PHE suggest that primary care staff stop
doing to fit this in?

Doctors must question what they are
told to do, speak up, and point out flaws in arguments when asked to
prescribe drugs of questionable benefit. Prescribing because of fear is
toxic to patient care and safety.

Notes

Cite this as:BMJ 2015;350:h417

Footnotes

Competing
interests: I have read and understood the BMJ policy on declaration of
interests and declare the following interests: I’m an NHS GP partner,
with income partly dependent on Quality and Outcomes Framework points.
I’m a part time undergraduate tutor at the University of Glasgow. I’ve
written two books and earn from broadcast and written freelance
journalism. I’m an unpaid patron of Healthwatch. I make a monthly
donation to Keep Our NHS Public. I’m a member of Medact. I’m
occasionally paid for time, travel, and accommodation to give talks or
have locum fees paid to allow me to give talks but never for any drug or
public relations company. I was elected to the national council of the
Royal College of General Practitioners in 2013 and am chair of its
standing group on overdiagnosis. I have invested a small amount of money
in a social enterprise, Who Made Your Pants?

Over-the-counter sleeping aids and hayfever treatments can increase
the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, a study has found. The sleeping
medication Nytol and anti-allergy pills Benadryl and Piriton all belong
to a class of drug highlighted in a warning from researchers.
Each of these drugs has “anticholinergic” blocking effects on the
nervous system that are said – at higher doses – to raise the likelihood
of developing Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia significantly
over several years.
Other drugs on the risk list include older “tricyclic”
antidepressants such as doxepin, and the bladder control treatment
Ditropan (oxybutynin). Many of these medicines are taken by vulnerable
older people, according to the scientists, who say their findings have
public health implications.
Anticholinergic drugs block a nervous system chemical transmitter
called acetylcholine, which can lead to side-effects including
drowsiness, blurred vision and poor memory. People with Alzheimer’s
disease are known to lack acetylcholine.
The leader of the US study, Professor Shelly Gray, director of the
geriatric pharmacy programme at the University of Washington School of
Pharmacy, said: “Older adults should be aware that many medications –
including some available without a prescription, such as
over-the-counter sleep aids – have strong anticholinergic effects. And
they should tell their healthcare providers.
“Of course, no one should stop taking any therapy without consulting
their healthcare provider. Healthcare providers should regularly review
their older patients’ drug regimens – including over-the-counter
medications – to look for chances to use fewer anticholinergic
medications at lower doses.”
Dr Simon Ridley, at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “This large study
adds to some existing evidence linking anticholinergic drugs to a small
increased risk of dementia, but the results don’t tell us that these
drugs cause the condition.
“Continued research to shed light on these links will be important
for helping understand the benefits and potential risks of these drugs.
In the meantime, anyone who is worried about the medication they are
taking should seek advice from a doctor or pharmacist before stopping a
course of treatment.”
Dr Doug Brown, director of research and development at the
Alzheimer’s Society, said: “There have been concerns that regular use by
older people of certain medications with anticholinergic effects, such
as sleep aids and hayfever treatments, can increase the risk of dementia
in certain circumstances, which this study supports. However, it is
still unclear whether this is the case and if so, whether the effects
seen are a result of long-term use or several episodes of short-term
use.
“More robust research is needed to understand what the potential
dangers are, and if some drugs are more likely to have this effect than
others.”
Previous research has raised concerns about the use of
anticholinergic drugs and mental impairment in the elderly. But the new
study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, is the first to
show a dose response linking greater use of the medicines with an
increasing risk of dementia.
The scientists tracked the health of 3,434 men and women aged 65 and
over for around seven years while monitoring their use of
anticholinergic drugs. Of those, 637 developed Alzheimer’s and 160 were
afflicted by other forms of dementia.
For those taking the highest doses of anticholinergic drugs over the
study period, the relative risk of dementia was increased by a
statistically significant 54% compared with no use. The risk of
Alzheimer’s alone was raised by 63%.
The findings showed that people taking at least 10mg per day of
doxepin, 4mg per day of diphenhydramine (Nytol, Benadryl) or 5mg per day
of oxybutynin (Ditropan) for more than three years were at an increased
risk of developing dementia.Available substitutes that did not have
anticholinergic effects included selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor
(SSRI) antidepressants such as Prozac and newer anti-histamine allergy
treatments including loratadine (Claritin), said Gray.
She added: “If providers need to prescribe a medication with
anticholinergic effects because it is the best therapy for their
patient, they should use the lowest effective dose, monitor the therapy
regularly to ensure it’s working, and stop the therapy if it’s
ineffective.”
In their paper, the researchers pointed out that anticholinergic
effects in animals had been shown to increase levels of beta-amyloid
protein in the brain, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s.
They concluded: “These findings … have public health implications for
the education of older adults about potential safety risks because some
anticholinergics are available as over-the-counter products.
“Given the devastating consequences of dementia, informing older
adults about this potentially modifiable risk would allow them to choose
alternative products and collaborate with their health care
professionals to minimise overall anticholinergic use.
“Additional studies are needed to confirm these findings and to understand the underlying mechanisms.”

Monday, 26 January 2015

NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
- See more at:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
- See more at:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study

January 14, 2015

OTTAWA—
Over the last two decades, Canada has been sued more times than either
Mexico or the U.S. under NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute
settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and the problem is getting worse.
A study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
(CCPA) finds over 70% of all NAFTA investor-state claims since 2005
were brought against the Canadian government and the number of
challenges against Canada is rising sharply. From 1995-2005, there were
12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years there have been
23.
"It appears that the federal government's strong ideological
commitment to ISDS and its willingness to settle and pay compensation is
encouraging investor-state claims against Canada," says Sinclair.
As of January 1, 2015, 45% of NAFTA claims were made against Canada.
Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, significantly
more than either Mexico (22) or the U.S. (20). "Thanks to NAFTA chapter
11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute
settlement, than any other developed country in the world," Sinclair
added.
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was
needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system,
most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory
matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve
challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide
range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected
profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over
$6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec
provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal
court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not
sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote
the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on
offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to
block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages
totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal
costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million.
The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter
11 puts a chill on public interest regulation, the report argues.
Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is
taken.
"Canadians and their elected officials should be deeply concerned.
Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is
surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of
ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada," Sinclair stated.

–30–

NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Senior Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306.

Find Publications

- See more at:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study

January 14, 2015

OTTAWA—
Over the last two decades, Canada has been sued more times than either
Mexico or the U.S. under NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute
settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and the problem is getting worse.
A study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
(CCPA) finds over 70% of all NAFTA investor-state claims since 2005
were brought against the Canadian government and the number of
challenges against Canada is rising sharply. From 1995-2005, there were
12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years there have been
23.
"It appears that the federal government's strong ideological
commitment to ISDS and its willingness to settle and pay compensation is
encouraging investor-state claims against Canada," says Sinclair.
As of January 1, 2015, 45% of NAFTA claims were made against Canada.
Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, significantly
more than either Mexico (22) or the U.S. (20). "Thanks to NAFTA chapter
11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute
settlement, than any other developed country in the world," Sinclair
added.
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was
needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system,
most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory
matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve
challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide
range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected
profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over
$6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec
provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal
court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not
sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote
the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on
offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to
block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages
totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal
costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million.
The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter
11 puts a chill on public interest regulation, the report argues.
Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is
taken.
"Canadians and their elected officials should be deeply concerned.
Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is
surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of
ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada," Sinclair stated.

–30–

NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Senior Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306.

Find Publications

- See more at:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study#sthash.HhUTrPrV.dpuf

NAFTA investor-state claims against Canada are "out of control": study

January 14, 2015

OTTAWA—
Over the last two decades, Canada has been sued more times than either
Mexico or the U.S. under NAFTA's controversial investor-state dispute
settlement (ISDS) mechanism, and the problem is getting worse.
A study released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
(CCPA) finds over 70% of all NAFTA investor-state claims since 2005
were brought against the Canadian government and the number of
challenges against Canada is rising sharply. From 1995-2005, there were
12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years there have been
23.
"It appears that the federal government's strong ideological
commitment to ISDS and its willingness to settle and pay compensation is
encouraging investor-state claims against Canada," says Sinclair.
As of January 1, 2015, 45% of NAFTA claims were made against Canada.
Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, significantly
more than either Mexico (22) or the U.S. (20). "Thanks to NAFTA chapter
11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute
settlement, than any other developed country in the world," Sinclair
added.
The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was
needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system,
most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory
matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve
challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.
Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide
range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected
profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over
$6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.
These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec
provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal
court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not
sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote
the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on
offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to
block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).
Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages
totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal
costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million.
The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.
The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter
11 puts a chill on public interest regulation, the report argues.
Current trends will only worsen unless political and legal action is
taken.
"Canadians and their elected officials should be deeply concerned.
Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is
surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of
ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada," Sinclair stated.

–30–

NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015 and its accompanying analysis, Democracy Under Challenge: Canada and Two Decades of NAFTA's Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism, are available on the CCPA website at http://policyalternatives.ca
For more information contact Kerri-Anne Finn, CCPA Senior Communications Officer, at 613-563-1341 x306.

Highlights

Plant by-products have the potential to be used as natural preservatives.

Abstract

The
use of natural antimicrobial compounds in food has gained much
attention by the consumers and the food industry. This is due primarily
to two major factors. First, the misuse and mishandling of antibiotics
has resulted in the dramatic rise of a group of microorganisms including
foodborne pathogens that are not only antibiotic resistant but also
more tolerant to several food processing and preservation methods. In
addition, increasing consumers' awareness of the potential negative
impact of synthetic preservatives on health versus the benefits of
natural additives has generated interest among researchers in the
development and use of natural products in foods. This has prompted the
food industry to look for alternative preservatives that can enhance the
safety and quality of foods. Compounds derived from natural sources
have the potential to be used for food safety due to their antimicrobial
properties against a broad range of foodborne pathogens. This article
reviews the antibacterial activity of natural components from different
sources including plants, animals, bacteria, algae and mushrooms, and
their potential use in food systems.

Abstract

Ethnopharmacological relevance

The
poor distribution and limited availability of antivenoms in Brazil have
led to greater use of plants to treat snakebites. Very often such
plants are the only alternative available to riverside communities.

Materials and methods

Direct
questionnaire-based interviews were conducted with members of the
Cucurunã, São Pedro and Alter do Chão communities in Santarém, Pará,
Brazil. For each of the 12 most frequently mentioned species aqueous
extracts were prepared and the phytochemical profiles determined by thin
layer chromatography. The concentrations of phenolic compounds (tannins
and flavonoids) in the aqueous extracts were determined by colorimetric
assays. To assess inhibition of the hemorrhagic activity of Bothrops jararaca
venom, solutions containing the venom mixed with aqueous extracts in
the ratios 1:12 and 1:48 were tested (w/w). SDS-PAGE and Western blot
were used to assess the action of the extracts on Bothrops jararaca venom.

Results

In
all, 24 plants belonging to 19 families were mentioned in the survey as
being used to treat snakebites. Leaves (84%), seeds (60.9%) and inner
bark (53%) were cited as the most frequently used parts in folk
remedies, which were usually prepared in the form of a decoction
(62.5%), tincture (45%) or maceration (22.5%). Hemorrhage induced by Bothrops jararaca venom was completely inhibited by aqueous extracts of Bellucia dichotoma, Connarus favosus, Plathymenia reticulata and Philodendron megalophyllum,
which had a high phenolic content and contained condensed and
hydrolyzable tannins. The results of SDS-PAGE showed that some venom
protein bands were not visible when the venom was preincubated with the
extracts that had completely inhibited hemorrhagic activity of the
venom. Western blot showed that the extracts did not have any enzymatic
action on the proteins in the venom as it failed to detect
low-molecular-weight bands, which are indicative of possible enzymatic
cleavage.

Conclusions

Traditional
use of plants to treat snakebites is a common practice in the western
region of Pará, Brazil. Our findings show that some plant extracts were
able to inhibit snake venom-induced hemorrhage in vitro. In vivo studies
are being carried out to validate the traditional use of these species
to treat snakebites.

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

If a man have money todayPeople do not care if he have cocobay [A skin disease]If a man have money todayPeople do not care if he have cocobayHe can commit murder and get off freeAnd live in the governor’s companyBut if you are poor, the people tell you “Shoo!”And a dog is better than you.

If you have money to buy in a storeThe boss will shake your hands at the doorCall the clerk to take down everythingWhiskey, cloth, earring and diamond ringSend them to your home on a motorbikeYou can pay the bills whenever you likeAnd not a soul will ask you a thingThey know very well that money is king

A man with a collar and tie and waistcoatAsk the Chinee man to trust him accra and float“Me no trus’ am!” bawl out de Chinee man“You better move on from me frying pan.You’re a college man. Me no know ABCYou want am accra, gi am penny.”The worms start to jump in the man bellyAnd he cry out, “A dog is better than me!”

A dog can walk about and take up boneFowl head, stale bread, fish tail and poneIf it’s a good breed and not too wildPeople will take it and mind as a childBut when a hungry man goes out to begThey set a bulldog behind his legTwenty policeman will arrest him tooYou see where a dog is better than you.

If you have money and things going niceAny woman would call you honey and spiceIf you can't give her dress or a new pair of shoeShe'll say she have no uses for youWhen you try to caress her, she'll tell you stop"I can't carry love in the grocery shop."And most of you will agree that it's trueIf you ent have money dog is better than you.

They’re harming researchers in low and middle income countries most, but everyone must fight back

The
rapid rise of predatory journals—publications taking large fees without
providing robust editorial or publishing services—has created what some
have called an age of academic racketeering.1
Predatory journals recruit articles through aggressive marketing and
spam emails, promising quick review and open access publication for a
price. There is little if any quality control and virtually no
transparency about processes and fees. Their motive is financial gain,
and they are corrupting the communication of science. Their main victims
are institutions and researchers in low and middle income countries,
and the time has come to act rather than simply to decry them.

Unfortunately,
predatory publishing is often confused with open access publishing,
whereby studies are free to all and can be reused for many purposes.
Legitimate open access publishing—which has widely benefited scientific
communication—uses all the professional and ethical practices associated
with the best science publishing. Predatory publishing upholds few if
any of the best practices yet demands payment for publishing. Under
traditional models of publishing librarians were sophisticated
purchasers of subscriptions, but in this new model many individual
researchers are unable to distinguish between reputable and predatory …

Get access to this article and to all of thebmj.com for 14 daysSign up today for a 14 day free trial

Sign in

Log in using your username and password

Re: Firm action needed on predatory journals

Thank you so much to the editors for this recent editorial
on predatory publishing practices. As you noted, this is a huge problem
and getting worse by the minute.
I fully agree with your recommendation that journals and journal
editors have a responsibility to raise awareness among their authors,
readers, reviewers, and publishers and "should publish something." To
this end, the International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) has
established an initiative on Open Access, Editorial Standards and
Predatory Publishing. This came about after our annual meeting last
summer, at which Jeffrey Beall was one of the keynote speakers.
Our first step was to create a collaborative document, "Predatory
Publishers: What Editors Need to Know." This was published in September
in Nurse Author & Editor and can be found here:http://www.nurseauthoreditor.com/article.asp?id=261
We made this document available to any nursing editor who wanted to
use it as a basis for an editorial in his or her journal. So far 7
editorials have been published, as well as a reprint of the paper, and a
blog post. More editorials are in the pipeline. We are keeping track of
these publications at the INANE website:http://nursingeditors.com/inane-initiatives/open-access-editorial-standa...
As INANE leaders, we are proud of our efforts in this regard. We are
glad that you concur that our approach is appropriate and important in
addressing this increasingly problematic issue.
Thank you.

Abstract

Herbal
medicines with anthelmintic effects are alternatives for the
sustainable control and prevention of disease caused by gastrointestinal
parasites. The nanoencapsulation of essential oils has been proposed to
enhance the absorption of their constituents and improve their
efficacy. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of free and
nanoencapsulated Eucalyptus citriodora essential oil (EcEO) on the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants in vitro and in vivo.
Chitosan was used as a matrix for the formulation of a nanoemulsion.
Chromatographic and physico-chemical analyses of EcEO were performed.
Egg hatch (EHT) and larval development (LDT) tests were conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness of nanoencapsulated and free EcEO on the eggs
and larvae of Haemonchus contortus. Acute toxicity of free and
nanoencapsulated EcEO was evaluated using mice. Finally,
nanoencapsulated EcEO efficacy on the control of gastrointestinal
nematodes was calculated by fecal egg count reduction test (FECRT)
treating 30 sheep naturally infected with 250 mg/kg of free and
nanoencapsulated EcEO. In vitro tests were analyzed by an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by comparison with the Tukey test.
The efficacy of FECRT was calculated by the BootStreet program through
arithmetic average, using the formula 100 (1 − XT/XC). To compare the
differences between epg, the data were transformed to log (x + 1) and subjected to an ANOVA to compare the significant differences between groups by Tukey's. The level of significance was P < 0.05.
The free (4 mg/ml concentration) and nanoencapsulated (2 mg/ml
concentration) EcEO inhibited larvae hatching by 97.2% and 92.8%,
respectively. Free and nanoencapsulated EcEO at 8 mg/ml inhibited larval
development by 99.8% and 98.1%, respectively. In the acute toxicity
test, the LD10 and LD50 of free EcEO was 1999 and 2653 mg/kg,
respectively, while the LD10 and LD50 of nanoencapsulated EcEO was 1121
and 1681 mg/kg, respectively. Nanoencapsulated and free EcEO reduced FEC
similarly by 40.5% and 55.9%, respectively at 10 days post-treatment.
Nanoencapsulated EcEO did not obtain the expected efficacy in vivo.